* Nish Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-27 12:22:54]:
> On 1/27/08, Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-27 22:55:43]:
> >
> > > Balbir Singh writes:
> > >
> > > > Here's a better and more complete fix for the problem. Could you
> > > >
* Nish Aravamudan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-01-27 12:22:54]:
On 1/27/08, Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Paul Mackerras [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-01-27 22:55:43]:
Balbir Singh writes:
Here's a better and more complete fix for the problem. Could you
please see if it works
On 1/27/08, Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-27 22:55:43]:
>
> > Balbir Singh writes:
> >
> > > Here's a better and more complete fix for the problem. Could you
> > > please see if it works for you? I tested it on a real NUMA box and it
> > >
* Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-27 22:55:43]:
> Balbir Singh writes:
>
> > Here's a better and more complete fix for the problem. Could you
> > please see if it works for you? I tested it on a real NUMA box and it
> > seemed to work fine there.
>
> There are a couple of other
Balbir Singh writes:
> Here's a better and more complete fix for the problem. Could you
> please see if it works for you? I tested it on a real NUMA box and it
> seemed to work fine there.
There are a couple of other changes in behaviour that your patch
introduces, and I'd like to understand
Balbir Singh writes:
Here's a better and more complete fix for the problem. Could you
please see if it works for you? I tested it on a real NUMA box and it
seemed to work fine there.
There are a couple of other changes in behaviour that your patch
introduces, and I'd like to understand them
* Paul Mackerras [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-01-27 22:55:43]:
Balbir Singh writes:
Here's a better and more complete fix for the problem. Could you
please see if it works for you? I tested it on a real NUMA box and it
seemed to work fine there.
There are a couple of other changes in
On 1/27/08, Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Paul Mackerras [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-01-27 22:55:43]:
Balbir Singh writes:
Here's a better and more complete fix for the problem. Could you
please see if it works for you? I tested it on a real NUMA box and it
seemed to work fine
* Michael Ellerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-18 16:44:58]:
>
> This fixes it, although I'm a little worried about some of the
> removals/movings of node_set_online() in the patch.
>
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> index 1666e7d..dcedc26 100644
> ---
* Michael Ellerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-01-18 16:44:58]:
This fixes it, although I'm a little worried about some of the
removals/movings of node_set_online() in the patch.
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
index 1666e7d..dcedc26 100644
---
* Michael Ellerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-18 16:44:58]:
> On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 16:34 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 04:07 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > > Changelog
> > >
> > > 1. Get rid of the constant 5 (based on comments from
> > >
* Michael Ellerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-18 16:34:53]:
> On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 04:07 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > Changelog
> >
> > 1. Get rid of the constant 5 (based on comments from
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED])
> > 2. Implement suggestions from Olof
* Michael Ellerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-18 16:55:03]:
> On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 04:07 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > Here's a dumb simple implementation of fake NUMA nodes for PowerPC. Fake
> > NUMA nodes can be specified using the following command line option
> >
>
> >
> > Comments are
* Michael Ellerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-01-18 16:44:58]:
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 16:34 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 04:07 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Changelog
1. Get rid of the constant 5 (based on comments from
[EMAIL
* Michael Ellerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-01-18 16:34:53]:
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 04:07 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Changelog
1. Get rid of the constant 5 (based on comments from
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
2. Implement suggestions from Olof Johannson
3. Check
* Michael Ellerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-01-18 16:55:03]:
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 04:07 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Here's a dumb simple implementation of fake NUMA nodes for PowerPC. Fake
NUMA nodes can be specified using the following command line option
Comments are as always
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 04:07 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> Here's a dumb simple implementation of fake NUMA nodes for PowerPC. Fake
> NUMA nodes can be specified using the following command line option
>
>
> Comments are as always welcome!
Here's some :)
> diff -puN
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 16:34 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 04:07 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > Changelog
> >
> > 1. Get rid of the constant 5 (based on comments from
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED])
> > 2. Implement suggestions from Olof Johannson
>
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 04:07 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> Changelog
>
> 1. Get rid of the constant 5 (based on comments from
> [EMAIL PROTECTED])
> 2. Implement suggestions from Olof Johannson
> 3. Check if cmdline is NULL in fake_numa_create_new_node()
>
> Tested
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 04:07 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Changelog
1. Get rid of the constant 5 (based on comments from
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
2. Implement suggestions from Olof Johannson
3. Check if cmdline is NULL in fake_numa_create_new_node()
Tested with
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 16:34 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 04:07 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Changelog
1. Get rid of the constant 5 (based on comments from
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
2. Implement suggestions from Olof Johannson
3. Check if
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 04:07 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Here's a dumb simple implementation of fake NUMA nodes for PowerPC. Fake
NUMA nodes can be specified using the following command line option
Comments are as always welcome!
Here's some :)
diff -puN
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 04:07:14AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Looks good to me. Sure, it could be fleshed out to something more
generic and in common code, but this is small and simple and doesn't
bloat the kernel much as it stands, and it has
Balbir Singh wrote:
> Changelog
>
> 1. Get rid of the constant 5 (based on comments from
> [EMAIL PROTECTED])
> 2. Implement suggestions from Olof Johannson
> 3. Check if cmdline is NULL in fake_numa_create_new_node()
>
> Tested with additional parameters from
Balbir Singh wrote:
Changelog
1. Get rid of the constant 5 (based on comments from
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
2. Implement suggestions from Olof Johannson
3. Check if cmdline is NULL in fake_numa_create_new_node()
Tested with additional parameters from Olof
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 04:07:14AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Looks good to me. Sure, it could be fleshed out to something more
generic and in common code, but this is small and simple and doesn't
bloat the kernel much as it stands, and it has value
Changelog
1. Get rid of the constant 5 (based on comments from
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
2. Implement suggestions from Olof Johannson
3. Check if cmdline is NULL in fake_numa_create_new_node()
Tested with additional parameters from Olof
numa=debug,fake=
Changelog
1. Get rid of the constant 5 (based on comments from
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
2. Implement suggestions from Olof Johannson
3. Check if cmdline is NULL in fake_numa_create_new_node()
Tested with additional parameters from Olof
numa=debug,fake=
28 matches
Mail list logo
